• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Battlefield 3 Reviews

S

StreamsOfInferno

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
91
First one up, which is actually well-written:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/121/1210387p1.html

If it's a fair and accurate review, which it actually seems (yeah, I know it's IGN, but it seems fair and objective and detailed), then I'm seriously impressed and stoked!

I'm referring to the multiplayer, however... no one plays BF for the single player.

I hope one GTX 580 will actually be enough to max-out the game.
 
Hearing something like this is always a little off-putting to me:

All four streamlined classes (Soldier, Engineer, Assault, and Recon) get their own problem-solving unlocks, so leveling each one is paramount to sitting on top of the leaderboards.
Click to expand...

I understand that playing more gets you bonuses, but in an MP environment I think it should be more about variety and less about "rank 1 shitty guns are going to get raped over and over by rank 20 uber guns". It tends to discourage new players. At least in Battlefield you can support and get points (I'm not a high K/D guy but I'm regularly in the top 5 in score due to support and teamwork).

I'm still super excited about this game and frankly this is about what I have come to expect, but I just thought I'd put that out there.
 
It looks like both IGN and Joystiq were both pretty critical of the SP. Pretty much exactly what I expected. I think it's safe to say that MP is what gamers are really after in BF3, and that's where DICE put the most effort.

Also, I don't think it's fair to lay the blame for quicktime events, cliche storytelling elements, etc. squarely on DICE's shoulders. For better or for worse, the expected formula for a AAA shooter campaign these days is basically an interactive movie. I've heard the term "set pieces" used to describe this phenomenon. I think Call of Duty did a lot to set this expectation, and the customers have validated it. Heck, I know I loved the original CoD campaign. Entire dialog sequences were even lifted straight from Enemy at the Gates.

On a side note, just finishing up Crysis 2 campaign. I've really enjoyed it. With the DX11 patch and high res texture pack, the game looks unbelievable. The story hasnt brought me to tears or anything, but I figure I'll sit down with the wife and watch The Notebook if thats what I want. Shooting aliens and blowing stuff up is a lot of fun!
 
MavericK96 said:
Hearing something like this is always a little off-putting to me:



I understand that playing more gets you bonuses, but in an MP environment I think it should be more about variety and less about "rank 1 shitty guns are going to get raped over and over by rank 20 uber guns". It tends to discourage new players. At least in Battlefield you can support and get points (I'm not a high K/D guy but I'm regularly in the top 5 in score due to support and teamwork).

I'm still super excited about this game and frankly this is about what I have come to expect, but I just thought I'd put that out there.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's my view on this whole ranking system too. I was a late comer in BF2, and most of the time I was the one with the default guns. But not as bad as BC2 where I was the most ill-equip player running around since there are all sort of unlocks. I didn't bother with BC2 after.
 
MavericK96 said:
Hearing something like this is always a little off-putting to me:



I understand that playing more gets you bonuses, but in an MP environment I think it should be more about variety and less about "rank 1 shitty guns are going to get raped over and over by rank 20 uber guns". It tends to discourage new players. At least in Battlefield you can support and get points (I'm not a high K/D guy but I'm regularly in the top 5 in score due to support and teamwork).

I'm still super excited about this game and frankly this is about what I have come to expect, but I just thought I'd put that out there.
Click to expand...

if its anything like BFBC2 with weapon balancing, the beginning guns will out do the upgraded guns. BC2's starting guns were the best, it was only until you got the magnum ammo unlock that the higher ranked people started gaining the advantage. but with the veriety of weapons/addons in BF3, i don't think it will really be an issue for a noobie vs some one who is already a high rank.
 
Love how MW2 gets a 10/10 for sound, while BF3 gets 9.5/10. Way to be unbiased there guys! :rolleyes:
 
Gamereactor Sweden 80 Metascore?

Isn't DICE HQ in Sweden? They must have pissed them off at some point in the past.

sirmonkey1985 said:
if its anything like BFBC2 with weapon balancing, the beginning guns will out do the upgraded guns. BC2's starting guns were the best, it was only until you got the magnum ammo unlock that the higher ranked people started gaining the advantage. but with the veriety of weapons/addons in BF3, i don't think it will really be an issue for a noobie vs some one who is already a high rank.
Click to expand...
Yep, the starting guns are the most effective and easier to use by default.
 
I am pretty sure you can max BF3 with a gtx 580 on highest settings possible with 100+ fps... @ 1024 x 768. ;) Always specify the resolution.
 
Entertainer said:
IGN gave MW2 a 10 for graphics, BF3 gets a 9.5.
Click to expand...

Seems that they deducted points on account of the engine not being perfect:

"The engine isn't perfect by any means. I encountered prone legs jutting through walls, saw snipers half-buried in mountainsides, watched my dead body stick through the hood of a jeep, and even noticed a story character float in a straight line from point A to point B, walls be damned. I've seen flower pots float in midair..."

Those shouldn't have been graphic flaws per se but collision detection//scripting flaws, but whatever, we all know that it is a 10 out of 10, sitting at the top of current games graphics wise.
 
MatDef said:
Love how MW2 gets a 10/10 for sound, while BF3 gets 9.5/10. Way to be unbiased there guys! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

CODMW2's sound rating should be 1/10. It's fucking terrible, the guns don't sound like guns at all....they make the same sound that haking my money-jar up and down makes.
 
Killa|3yte said:
It looks like both IGN and Joystiq were both pretty critical of the SP
Click to expand...

the Battlefield series is pretty much multiplayer only...no one should ver buy it for the single player as you're just wasting your $$...it is meant to be played online only
 
polonyc2 said:
the Battlefield series is pretty much multiplayer only...no one should ver buy it for the single player as you're just wasting your $$...it is meant to be played online only
Click to expand...

Back in the day it was, but it's clear DICE wanted to make a memorable and enjoyable single-player and turn Battlefield into an entire package. Saying that "oh it doesn't matter because BF is supposed to be multiplayer" doesn't make automatically make the game any better...and honestly, the BF fanboys here would be banging on about how brilliant the SP was if it was getting highly rated by the reviews.
 
polonyc2 said:
the Battlefield series is pretty much multiplayer only...no one should ver buy it for the single player as you're just wasting your $$...it is meant to be played online only
Click to expand...

did BF2 even have single player? If it did i never ever played it ehhe.
 
Plague_Injected said:
Back in the day it was, but it's clear DICE wanted to make a memorable and enjoyable single-player and turn Battlefield into an entire package. Saying that "oh it doesn't matter because BF is supposed to be multiplayer" doesn't make automatically make the game any better...and honestly, the BF fanboys here would be banging on about how brilliant the SP was if it was getting highly rated by the reviews.
Click to expand...

The SP was made to copy the COD, which many people didn't know and expect.
Also, it was mainly done because of consoles and that is what sells the game to the customer base.

It's fine for the PC community not to worry and SP, since the MP is totally geared towards them.
 
Plague_Injected said:
Back in the day it was, but it's clear DICE wanted to make a memorable and enjoyable single-player and turn Battlefield into an entire package. Saying that "oh it doesn't matter because BF is supposed to be multiplayer" doesn't make automatically make the game any better...and honestly, the BF fanboys here would be banging on about how brilliant the SP was if it was getting highly rated by the reviews.
Click to expand...

I'm a BF fan, I wouldn't touch the SP anyway, why waste my time? It's all about the MP.
 
PC Crusher

eiLWQ.png
 
So apparently the beta people were playing wasn't near as polished as the final release. Looks like they let the guys play the beta with a far earlier game than people expected.
 
JHefile said:
So apparently the beta people were playing wasn't near as polished as the final release. Looks like they let the guys play the beta with a far earlier game than people expected.
Click to expand...

Which is what DICE told everybody initially.....yet everyone thinks that was the final version and that BF3 sucks.
 
I have to admit.. watching that game review from IGN has me very curious and kind of excited, none of which I felt watching the mw3 videos.
 
I don't think people would be slamming the single-player so hard if DiCE hadn't talked it up so much. It's clear they wanted to outdo CoD in that respect.

Otherwise a lackluster SP component is par for the course for this series.
 
WorldExclusive said:
PC Crusher

[
Click to expand...

wow that’s heavier than I expected, they even used the drivers Nvidia released today. I’m waiting to see a similar review but with different CPU speeds (4000,4500,5000).
not sure but looks like goodbye kepler/ivy and hello 2700k/gtx580 for me :( though i'm not on a hurry (waiting for a late steam release).
 
WhiteZero said:
Driver performance comparisons != game review.

Still good info.
Click to expand...

Wasn't meant to be posted as a game review, just an idea of were performance is.
Of course [H] will give us the real world tests to demonstrate how the game really performs.
 
WorldExclusive said:
PC Crusher
Click to expand...

I think it'd be more interesting to see how it performs with AA off as well. I doubt too many people will be turning on AA in a MP game if its dropping your FPS below 30, I know I sure as hell wouldn't ;)
 
Tudz said:
I think it'd be more interesting to see how it performs with AA off as well. I doubt too many people will be turning on AA in a MP game if its dropping your FPS below 30, I know I sure as hell wouldn't ;)
Click to expand...

*stares at post* *checks to make sure its posted on hardforum* yeap. turning AA off?!!? nah man upgrade!! MOAR VIDEO CARDS :p
 
Tudz said:
I think it'd be more interesting to see how it performs with AA off as well. I doubt too many people will be turning on AA in a MP game if its dropping your FPS below 30, I know I sure as hell wouldn't ;)
Click to expand...

For the mid-range cards to barely reach 30fps, makes this game a beast.
AA will defintely have to be turned down, I know MSAA could be off for me if my VRAM slows down performance.
MLAA is a huge plus with games that are this demanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top